|
Post by matt on Sept 27, 2010 0:38:45 GMT
Monckton isn't a climatologist. He is a politician. And that is a topic he is pretty good at. If he wasn't then nobody would be concerned about him. True. His danger to society is that he has a pulpit.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2010 0:56:24 GMT
True. His danger to society is that he has a pulpit. Everybody has a pulpit. Its only a question if they use it or not. Monckton isn't a danger to society as all he does is engage in debate. Society is endangered when debate is squelched. Bottom line is Monckton challenges the AGW zealots to deliver evidence and they admit that they cannot deliver the evidence. . . .in fact they see it as a travesty that they cannot deliver the evidence. That is an admission they lost the debate. Now all that is going on is complaints that there was a debate in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 27, 2010 9:59:55 GMT
True. His danger to society is that he has a pulpit. Everybody has a pulpit. Its only a question if they use it or not. Monckton isn't a danger to society as all he does is engage in debate. Society is endangered when debate is squelched. Bottom line is Monckton challenges the AGW zealots to deliver evidence and they admit that they cannot deliver the evidence. . . .in fact they see it as a travesty that they cannot deliver the evidence. That is an admission they lost the debate. Now all that is going on is complaints that there was a debate in the first place. Monckton isn't about proper debate. It is about winning the argument using all means necessary including lying, misrepresentation and obfuscation. He doesn't challenge anyone to get any evidence, he just looks at the evidence and makes up a meaningless story using complicated looking words and equations. He is easy to take apart. The fact that he still gets a hearing is a reflection on society, not on the science.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2010 16:05:42 GMT
Monckton isn't about proper debate. It is about winning the argument using all means necessary including lying, misrepresentation and obfuscation. He doesn't challenge anyone to get any evidence, he just looks at the evidence and makes up a meaningless story using complicated looking words and equations. He is easy to take apart. The fact that he still gets a hearing is a reflection on society, not on the science. I only looked at one Monckton refutation and Monckton's response so I am not an expert on what he does; but I didn't see him using equations or constructing any line of science. Instead what he does is point out the inconsistencies in AGW science in much the same way a financial auditor presents his findings to senior management towards the end of an audit. Senior management has this opportunity to explain and convince the auditors otherwise but instead what we see with Monckton is an ad hominem attack rather than an explanation. You represent that position excellently.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 27, 2010 16:25:53 GMT
Monckton isn't about proper debate. It is about winning the argument using all means necessary including lying, misrepresentation and obfuscation. He doesn't challenge anyone to get any evidence, he just looks at the evidence and makes up a meaningless story using complicated looking words and equations. He is easy to take apart. The fact that he still gets a hearing is a reflection on society, not on the science. I only looked at one Monckton refutation and Monckton's response so I am not an expert on what he does; but I didn't see him using equations or constructing any line of science. Instead what he does is point out the inconsistencies in AGW science in much the same way a financial auditor presents his findings to senior management towards the end of an audit. Senior management has this opportunity to explain and convince the auditors otherwise but instead what we see with Monckton is an ad hominem attack rather than an explanation. You represent that position excellently. Yes, note that steve says he is "easy to take apart", then proceeds to not do it. Tell us steve, where is Monckton lying in this presentation? We've been through this before; everything he states is correct and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 27, 2010 17:04:12 GMT
It is fascinating to watch as people point out that Monckton is calling black white and white black, and then for people like magellan state that noone has found any faults with Monckton!
Monckton has misrepresented the CO2 projections and the temperature rise projections of the IPCC. He has produced a bizarre piece of pseudoscience on ocean CO2. He has claimed to cure HIV and the common cold. He has claimed to be a member of the British legislature. He has complained when people don't check with him before they publish things by him, but then if people do check things with him he publishes what they say rather than first offer his defence. He claimed that arctic sea ice has been steady for the last decade when it clearly is not. He has previously loudly complained to the APS when his claim to have written a "peer-reviewed" paper about climate sensitivity was pointed out to be untrue - though now he say he wrote "a <cough cough> reviewed paper".
Magellan, if you want to properly defend Monckton, could you please transcribe the section where Monckton talks about arctic sea ice, sea level and ocean acidification so we can properly and transparently discuss whether the level of Monckton's obfuscation and inference in this preseantation are sufficiently serious enough to count as lies. I'm certainly not going to do your work for you.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 27, 2010 17:38:09 GMT
Here's an alleged lie from a while back. You can check the citations if you don't believe the claim which appeared in a realclimate comment.
And the Soon and Balinius paper makes no mention at all of the difference in temperature.
But I know that you believe Monckton is infallible and that therefore no checking needs to be done.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2010 18:07:39 GMT
Here's an alleged lie from a while back. You can check the citations if you don't believe the claim which appeared in a realclimate comment.
Monckton: “According to Villalba (1990, 1994), and Soon and Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C. From c1000 AD, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa 2000; Lamb 1972a,b; Villalba 1990, 1994).”
Let’s look at the papers that Monckton cites in justification of these statements:
1. Villalba (1990) “Climate Fluctuations in Northern Patagonia During the Last 1000 Years Inferred From Tree Ring Records” Quaternary Research 34, 346-360.
In summing up the variation in temperature during the period under study Villalba says (and this is the only point in the entire paper where Villalba discusses absolute temperature variations):
“The temperature departure mean for the coldest interval (1520-1670) is 0.33 oC lower than for the warmer interval (1080-1260)”see page 354, 2/5ths down second column of the page
When one says "by up to" one does not mean a long term "mean" Steve. So do you have the links to these three papers so we can see what figures the mean was calculated from? I would take "up to" to be maximum individual reading plus the error bar, which obviously is not being conveyed in the statement you are linking to but must exist someplace or how do you calculate a mean?
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 27, 2010 18:50:40 GMT
Anything said about Monckton's 'risks' to society pale in comparison to AGW promoters and their demands for money and power. As someone who has never followed Monckton in any serious way, and has never looked to him as a source of skeptical info, I find this entire thread yet another effort of AGW true believers to waste time. outta here.....
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 27, 2010 20:43:47 GMT
Here's an alleged lie from a while back. You can check the citations if you don't believe the claim which appeared in a realclimate comment.
Monckton: “According to Villalba (1990, 1994), and Soon and Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C. From c1000 AD, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa 2000; Lamb 1972a,b; Villalba 1990, 1994).”
Let’s look at the papers that Monckton cites in justification of these statements:
1. Villalba (1990) “Climate Fluctuations in Northern Patagonia During the Last 1000 Years Inferred From Tree Ring Records” Quaternary Research 34, 346-360.
In summing up the variation in temperature during the period under study Villalba says (and this is the only point in the entire paper where Villalba discusses absolute temperature variations):
“The temperature departure mean for the coldest interval (1520-1670) is 0.33 oC lower than for the warmer interval (1080-1260)”see page 354, 2/5ths down second column of the page
When one says "by up to" one does not mean a long term "mean" Steve. That's not a very good justification. Using the same justification I expect you will find some the years of the "LIA" period defined in the paper were "up to" some positive number warmer than the coldest years of the "MWP" period defined in the paper, or the cold end of the "MWP" error bars were warmer than the warm end of the "LIA" error bars. Anyway, at least you understand the Monckton method of distortion and inference. You are the one insisting on me quoting bare faced lies where I am the one stating that while he does tell lies, mostly he makes misleading inferences etc. Unless you go to the library or pay 31 dollars you can only see the abstracts.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 28, 2010 3:01:09 GMT
|
|
ZL4DH
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 128
|
Post by ZL4DH on Sept 28, 2010 3:35:09 GMT
Does it really matter, if you flip the coin all you have on the other side is Al Gore and look how many idiots believe him so its just balancing the books.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 28, 2010 11:19:18 GMT
steve, are you ever going to give specific (meaning exact) examples instead of generalizations and name calling? Where have I called Monckton a name other than Christopher Monckton - if you can find such examples then you should also be able to find many more examples where I've simply pointed out his lies and distortions. On this thread all I've done is give specific (meaning exact) examples of his lies and obfuscations. It's this sort of mental blindness that I was referring to in the previous post. So I'll just have to repeat my previous post. It is fascinating to watch as people point out that Monckton is calling black white and white black, and then for people like magellan state that noone has found any faults with Monckton! Monckton has misrepresented the CO2 projections and the temperature rise projections of the IPCC. He has produced a bizarre piece of pseudoscience on ocean CO2. He has claimed to cure HIV and the common cold. He has claimed to be a member of the British legislature. He has complained when people don't check with him before they publish things by him, but then if people do check things with him he publishes what they say rather than first offer his defence. He claimed that arctic sea ice has been steady for the last decade when it clearly is not. He has previously loudly complained to the APS when his claim to have written a "peer-reviewed" paper about climate sensitivity was pointed out to be untrue - though now he say he wrote "a <cough cough> reviewed paper". Magellan, if you want to properly defend Monckton, could you please transcribe the section where Monckton talks about arctic sea ice, sea level and ocean acidification so we can properly and transparently discuss whether the level of Monckton's obfuscation and inference in this preseantation are sufficiently serious enough to count as lies. I'm certainly not going to do your work for you. In his first example, he obfuscates by stating that certain rocks imply a certain level of CO2 which must therefore disallow glacier formation at equatorial sea level, and he says that glaciers came and went twice. But he ignores the fact that since glaciers "came and went twice" it fits the story whereby while the glaciers existed CO2 built up (due to lack of surface rock to absorb the CO2) to a level at which the CO2 induced warming melted the glaciers (which would have required some hundreds of thousands of ppm) in line with what Monckton says. So his conclusion that the glaciers could not have existed does not logically follow. Therefore he is not representing anything other than an ill-informed and limited view. His reference for this piece of information is a personal communication from Ian Plimer which is not a very good source as it cannot be checked. Plimer doesn't have any scientific papers that clearly make the link between CO2 levels and these rock formations. If it is so clear, why hasn't Plimer published?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 28, 2010 11:31:26 GMT
Does it really matter, if you flip the coin all you have on the other side is Al Gore and look how many idiots believe him so its just balancing the books. Monckton is not an elected politician and has no formally recognised scientific qualifications. There are no grounds for him to be presenting evidence to a foreign government.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2010 11:45:22 GMT
In his first example, he obfuscates by stating that certain rocks imply a certain level of CO2 which must therefore disallow glacier formation at equatorial sea level, and he says that glaciers came and went twice. But he ignores the fact that since glaciers "came and went twice" it fits the story whereby while the glaciers existed CO2 built up (due to lack of surface rock to absorb the CO2) to a level at which the CO2 induced warming melted the glaciers (which would have required some hundreds of thousands of ppm) in line with what Monckton says. So his conclusion that the glaciers could not have existed does not logically follow. Therefore he is not representing anything other than an ill-informed and limited view. His reference for this piece of information is a personal communication from Ian Plimer which is not a very good source as it cannot be checked. Plimer doesn't have any scientific papers that clearly make the link between CO2 levels and these rock formations. If it is so clear, why hasn't Plimer published? So your claim of lying is that he in fact did not have a personal communication with Ian Plimer? How do you know that?
|
|